The Development of a Multidimensional Measure of Procrastination and Timely Engagement: A 2x2 Model of ‘When’ and ‘Why’

Kamden K. Strunk, YoonJung Cho, Misty R. Steele, & Stacey L. BridgesOklahoma State University

Prior research makes apparent that procrastination presents problems and challenges for learners such as aversive outcomes in health (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997), psychological well-being (Owens & Newbegin, 2000; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Tice &

Baumeister, 1997), and poor performance (Howell, Watson, Powell, & Buro,

2006; Owens & Newbegin, 2000). Procrastination is an educational concern for classroom instructors because of its negative psychological and academic impacts on students. However, the traditional view of procrastination as a unidimensional construct is insufficient in two regards. First, the construct needs to be viewed more broadly as time-related academic behavior, encompassing both procrastination and timely engagement. Secondly, the traditional view fails to consider the underlying motivation of these behaviors. Therefore, a new 2×2 model of time-related academic behavior was formulated.We incorporated the concept of ‘timely engagement’ into the existing model of procrastination to provide a comprehensive picture of possible time-related academic behaviors. In addition, we incorporated approach versus avoidance motivational valence into the model of time-related academic behaviors in order to conceptualize distinct types of time-related behaviors with different natures and functions.

In the current study, therefore, we proposed a 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement that includes two dimensions: 1) the ‘time’ dimension indicating which time-related academic behaviors occur (i.e. procrastination versus timely engagement), 2) the ‘motivational orientation’ dimension indicating why the time-related academic behaviors occur (i.e. approach versus avoidance). The combination of the two dimensions resulted in four different ‘types’ of behavior.

Procrastination-approach refers to the behavior of delaying starting or completing tasks to obtain desirable outcomes. Procrastination-approach would be similar to what the literature has characterized as active procrastination: delaying tasks in order to gain a strategic advantage on the task (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi,

2005). By contrast, procrastination-avoidance refers to the delay of tasks driven by the avoidance of undesirable outcomes, rather than the approach of desirable ones. Procrastination-avoidance would be similar to the traditional type of procrastination, given that it is normally driven by either self-regulatory failure (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuck, Huan,

Wong, & Yeo, 2009; Klassen, Krawchuck, Lynch, & Rajani, 2008; Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995) or avoidant coping style (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Burns, Dittman, Nguyen, &

Mitchelson, 2000; Carden, Bryant, & Moss, 2004; Deniz, Tras, & Aydogan, 2009).

The sample consisted of 1496 undergraduate students from a large Midwestern university, including 600 men and 891 women, with 5 participants not reporting gender. The breakdown by classification was: 535 freshman, 273 sophomores, 356 juniors, and 329 seniors, with 3 students not reporting classification. The mean age of participants was 20.61 (SD = 3.16), and mean GPA was 3.29 (SD = .47).

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the 2×2 measure of procrastination and timely engagement. The initial CFA resulted in the exclusion of five items from the measure due to low factor loadings. A resulting second CFA performed with the low-loading items removed revealed that the four-factor model is a good fit to the data (CFI = .929, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = .050), with the exception of the chi-square test which was significant (χ2

265 = 1633.937, p < .001). The four factors include procrastination-approach, procrastination-avoidance, timely engagement-approach, and timely engagement-avoidance.

Next, we tested how the new scales that make up the 2×2 measure are correlated with an existing measure of procrastination which utilizes the unidimensional conceptualization of the construct, the Procrastination Scale for Students (Lay, 1986), to examine convergent and divergent validity. As expected, both timely engagement-approach and timely engagement-avoidance correlated negatively with the existing scale (Lay, 1986), while both procrastination-approach and procrastination-avoidance correlated positively with the scale. The magnitude of correlation indicated that these scales share variance to capture time-related academic behaviors while they appear to be distinct constructs (Cohen, 1988).

The 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement challenges the traditional model of procrastination in which procrastination is viewed as a unidimensional construct. First, we confirmed the validity of the measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis, finding a good fit to the data.To further test the conceptual validity of the new 2×2 model of time-related academic behaviors (i.e., procrastination and timely engagement), we examined how the constructs included in the new measurement model were associated with traditionally defined generalized procrastination. The correlation pattern showed that the traditional view of procrastination as a unidimensional construct partially captured the difference between procrastination and timely engagement but failed to differentiate approach versus avoidance motivation.

Contact: kamden.strunk@okstate.edu

Background

Present Study

Participants

Discussion

Results

Procrastination-Approach Loading S.E.1. I more effectively utilize my time by postponing tasks. .65 .022. I delay completing tasks to increase the quality of my

work..60 .02

6. I put off starting tasks to increase my motivation .71 .029. I feel a stronger state of “flow” in my tasks when

working closer to a deadline..69 .02

14. I intentionally wait until closer to the deadline to begin work to enhance my performance.

.80 .01

21. I delay tasks because I perform better when under more time pressure.

.85 .01

29. I rarely have difficulty completing quality work when starting a task close to the deadline.

.51 .02

Procrastination-Avoidance Loading S.E.5. I put off tasks for later because they are too difficult to

complete..61 .02

13. I put off completing tasks due to a fear of failure. .47 .0315. I delay starting tasks because they are overwhelming to

me..71 .02

23. I avoid starting and completing tasks. .53 .0224. I often delay starting tasks because I am afraid of failure. .70 .0225. I delay starting tasks because they are overwhelming. .77 .02

Timely engagement-Approach Loading S.E.3. It is important to me to complete tasks on time because

I want to achieve the best result possible..33 .02

4. I work further ahead of the deadline, at a slower pace, because it helps me perform better.

.73 .01

8. I believe I can successfully complete most tasks because I start work immediately after being assigned a task.

.73 .01

19. I do my best work well ahead of the deadline. .71 .0122. I start working right away on a new task so that I can

perform better on the task..81 .01

27. I complete my tasks prior to their deadlines to help me be successful.

.59 .02

28. I begin working on difficult tasks early in order to achieve positive results.

.80 .01

Timely engagement-Avoidance Loading S.E.7. I start my work early because my performance suffers

when I have to rush through a task..80 .01

10. I do not start things at the last minute because I find it difficult to complete them on time.

.67 .02

11. I begin working on a newly assigned task right away to avoid falling behind.

.81 .01

17. When I receive a new assignment, I try to complete it ahead of the deadline to avoid feeling overwhelmed.

.79 .01

18. On extremely difficult tasks, I begin work even earlier so I can avoid the consequences of putting it off for later.

.73 .01

Reliabilities were then assessed for the four resulting scales using Cronbach’s α. All scales showed good reliabilities (DeVellis, 2003) with procrastination-avoidance being the lowest (α = .81), followed by timely engagement-approach (α = .85), then procrastination-approach (α = .86), and finally timely engagement-avoidance (α = .87).

Measure M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4.1. Procrastination-Approach 3.75 (1.28) -2. Timely Engagement-Approach 4.29 (1.18) *-.59 -3. Procrastination-Avoidance 3.03 (1.25) *-.25 *.22 -4.Timely Engagement-Avoidance 4.09 (1.42) *.60 *-.85 *-.17 -5. Procrastination Scale for Students 3.85 (0.88) *.46 *-.61 *.47 *-.60